Comparative Analysis of HESA and QILT: Insights into Graduate Outcomes Data

Comparative Analysis of HESA and QILT: Insights into Graduate Outcomes Data

Having looked closely at government mandated graduate outcomes data from both Australia and the UK, we have put together a commentary on data consistency, quality and ease of use.  We hope you find this useful in your own data analysis and this commentary can be utilised by colleagues working in higher education to improve and enhance data provision now and in the future.

HESA Higher Education Statistics Agency data.

1. Issues with consistency where the source data differs from year to year 

Example Table 1

( Link to Figure 15 and Figure 3 )

Example Table 2

[ 2023 Data ]

Variations in data raise concerns about consistency. While some fluctuation is expected, it's important for data to be consistent to ensure accuracy and reliability in analysis and reporting.

In terms of usability, UK HESA’s data is scattered across multiple links, unlike Australian QILT’s data which is organized as a series of PDFs making it much more user friendly, plus providing institutions summaries for ease of analysis. While yearly data is valuable for time-based analysis, data has to be downloaded year on year, and cannot be collated for more efficient analysis.

Currently, the raw data format differs from the table format, and the process of downloading each set, especially with various filter combinations, is cumbersome. Aligning the formats would greatly improve usability.

 

Example Table 3

( Link to Table 6 )

Additionally, discrepancies in the sum of values, raises concerns about accuracy.

 

Analysis of Australian QILT Data

• There is ambiguity regarding the time period – does the data refer to a single year 2023 or does it include data up to 2023? HESA’s data works on an annual cycle and is reported annually all be it often later than scheduled. Year-on-year reporting of data allows for time series comparisons.
• Unlike HESA, QILT data is consistent and is presented as percentage figures instead of raw data, which preferable from an analyst's point of view for quick analysis and comparisons.

  

Summary: HESA Data Advantages: Offers detailed and extensive raw data, with a range of filters which can be useful for specific analysis. Provides data over multiple years, allowing for longitudinal analysis and trend analysis. Disadvantages: Data is dispersed across multiple sources, which can make it difficult to find and integrate. Issues of consistency between raw data and the data in the provided tables complicate data extraction and analysis. The need to download each dataset separately and manage various filters can be inefficient and time-consuming.   QILT Data Advantages: More timely updates allow institutions to plan more effectively and respond to changes. Data is compiled into a single report, making it easier to find and download relevant information. A clear and consistent format simplifies data interpretation and comparison. Overall percentages and summaries are readily available, which can be useful for immediate comparisons and analysis. Disadvantages: May not be as comprehensive as HESA data, potentially missing detailed breakdowns or historical data as it focuses on overall percentages rather than the raw data - this limits the depth of analysis. There is uncertainty about the time period covered - whether data pertains to a certain census date in 2023 or extends through that year.

 

Comparisons of government mandated domestic graduate outcomes data for both Australia and the UK with Asia Careers Group SDN BHD's International Graduate Outcomes data, focused on international graduates returning to their home countries post-graduation.

Overall Employability of UK Domestic & International Graduates

When comparing our international graduate data with HESA’s domestic graduate data, the overall employability of international graduates shows a slight decline relative to domestic graduates, with the international average being lower across all UK institutions.

Undergraduate Employability of UK Domestic & International Graduates

For undergraduates, our data reveals a slightly lower average employability rate of 74.78% compared to the overall average of 75.76%. This suggests that international undergraduates face some challenges in securing employment compared to the broader graduate group.

The variance among Non-Russell Group (Non-RG) universities (30.97% to 3.36%) and Russell Group (RG) universities (31.66% to 10.50%) is significant, highlighting disparities in employability outcomes based on the institution. This suggests that while some universities effectively supports international undergraduates in securing employment, others may be falling behind, resulting in a more inconsistent employability landscape for this group.

Postgraduate Employability of UK Domestic & International Graduates

Postgraduates have a higher average employability rate of 77.02%, which is 2.24% greater than that of undergraduates. However, there is significant variance, particularly within Russell Group universities, where employability rates range from 37.74% to 10.21%. This variation suggests that, while postgraduates generally fare better, outcomes can differ markedly based on the institution attended.

Comparing these variances to the domestic data from HESA, where employability is reported to have increased from 67% in 2017 to 72% in 2021, it’s clear that while international graduates (especially postgraduates) generally achieve high employability, their outcomes are less consistent than those of domestic graduates. This inconsistency could be attributed to varying levels of support, industry connections, and resources available to international students at different institutions.

Wider variances in our international data compared to the more stable figures reported by HESA for domestic graduates suggest that while international students can achieve high employability, their success is more heavily influenced by the specific university they attend. This underscores the need to improve support structures and employability initiatives for international students, particularly at institutions with lower employability outcomes.

Undergraduate Employability of Australian Domestic & International Graduates

In Australia, the data reveals a somewhat different picture. For international undergraduates, our figures indicate employability rates that surpass those reported by QILT, with approximately 50% of institutions showing better outcomes. Additionally, the variances in employability rates between our ACG Australian data and QILT are generally smaller than those between our ACG UK data and HESA.

Postgraduate Employability of Australian Domestic & International Graduates

Regarding postgraduate employability, the trend mirrors that of the UK, where postgraduates generally achieve better outcomes compared to undergraduates. In Australia, postgraduate employability exceeds that of undergraduates by 1.76%, reinforcing the positive trend observed in both countries.

Our data shows that international postgraduates generally have slightly lower employability rates compared to domestic QILT's figures, though the differences are not significant overall.

 

Overall comparison - Table

Comments

• In Australia, our overall employment rate was similar to QILT's in 2016 and 2017 but has gradually declined in subsequent years. Meanwhile, QILT’s overall employability rate has remained relatively constant, ranging from 92% to 94%. In contrast, our data shows a significant disparity, with employability dropping from a high of 87% in 2016 to a low of 65% in 2023.
• In the UK, our overall employment rate was stronger than HESA's before 2020 but worsened in 2020 and 2021. HESA reports that the employability of domestic graduates increased from 67% in 2017 to 72% in 2021. However, our data indicates a sharp decline in the employability of international graduates, falling from 85% to 59% during the same period.

 

Overall comparison - Graph

For 2023, we predict the employability of domestic graduates, based on HESA data, to be around 86% to 88%. In contrast, the employability of international graduates (specifically HESA Non-European Union data) is expected to be lower, at approximately 75% to 76%.

Before 2018, UK international graduates had better outcomes than their Australian peers, but post-2018, employability declined, with the pandemic impacting UK graduates more significantly than those in Australia.

Disclaimer on Average Employability Rates It’s important to clarify how the employability averages presented in this report have been calculated, as the method used can influence the results. For instance, the average employability rate of Australian international graduates based on ACG’s, calculated at approximately 79% across various years, differs from the national average employability rate of undergraduates in Australia, which is around 82%. This distinction highlights a key point: averaging across universities and averaging by year can produce different values. The way data is aggregated and the specific datasets used can impact the overall picture of employability that is presented. We encourage readers to consider these nuances when interpreting the figures and comparing the various averages in this report.